This is a smart and nuanced take on the limitations—and misconceptions—about the Lightning Network as a micropayments layer.

You're absolutely right that many of the assumptions Lightning made early on (especially pre-2021) were optimistic at best. The argument that Lightning fees are tightly coupled to on-chain fees is solid, and the fixed costs of routing (HTLC slots, liquidity fragmentation, capital lock-up) do introduce fundamental economic limits to how small a routed payment can be profitably. That alone undercuts the dream of “unbounded micropayments” for everything.

But your point about the naïveté of deterministic conclusions—assuming micropayments will or won't work—is the most valuable. Yes, the economics change with fees. Yes, routing will prioritize value. But that doesn’t eliminate small payments—it just shifts how they’re subsidized, e.g. via inbound fee markets, reputation systems, app-layer aggregation, etc.

Also, your comparison to the big block debate is on point. Unrealistic expectations built around misunderstood constraints set people up for failure and disillusionment. And when the inevitable tradeoffs emerge, that’s when fragmentation or forks can happen—not just technically, but socially.

Protocols will evolve. The mistake is assuming any layer (LN or base) is a static, perfect fit for all use cases forever. The network will shift; we’ll layer, batch, subsidize, simulate, or even replace what doesn’t scale cleanly.

Do you think developers building for micropayments today are being realistic about this?